U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, leaves the Alaska Legislature on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026, after his annual address to state legislators. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, leaves the Alaska Legislature on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026, after his annual address to state legislators. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
Facing a potentially difficult re-election campaign, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan came to the Alaska Legislature with praise for President Donald Trump’s administration and damnation for Democrats.
The Republican senator endured a gauntlet of protesters before he delivered his annual address to state lawmakers, saying his theme was an “Alaska comeback” brought about by the change between the Democratic presidency of Joe Biden and Trump’s Republican administration.
“We’re now beginning to see the beginnings of a real comeback and real progress on goals we’ve dreamed about collectively for decades,” he said, referring to the way the Trump administration has opened more parts of the North Slope to oil and gas drilling, and its stated support for a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.
Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, leads U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, through a group of protesters in the Alaska Capitol on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026. Hoffman has endorsed Sullivan in this year’s U.S. Senate elections. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
That plan calls for multiple oil and gas lease sales in Alaska, new military and Coast Guard construction in the state, and large personal tax cuts.
It also offered large one-time health care funding grants to compensate for a cut to Medicaid, cut federal food stamps and imposed work requirements for both programs.
More Alaska-specific benefits in the Big Beautiful Bill were objected to by Senate Democrats and removed before the bill’s final passage, including a Medicaid increase that Sullivan had sought.
In his speech, Sullivan repeatedly criticized Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
“Alaskans should know who wants to help us and who wants to hurt us,” Sullivan said.
One of the legislators listening in the audience was state Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage.
“That was the most partisan speech I’ve ever heard a member of the congressional delegation give in the Alaska Legislature,” he said afterward.
“There was no critique of what the Trump administration has done in canceling projects in Alaska. There was no critique of what Trump has done, whether it comes to rule of law or democracy,” Dunbar said.
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, receives applause from the Alaska Legislature on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026, during his annual address to state legislators. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
Also listening was state Sen. George Rauscher, R-Sutton. Afterward, Rauscher said he always appreciates the volume of Sullivan’s speeches and the range of subjects.
Did it feel like a campaign speech to him?
“If it felt like that, there’s probably a reason,” Rauscher said.
Until Sullivan was prompted by reporters and lawmakers, he didn’t address some of the nation’s most inflammatory issues, including the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers nationwide.
Rep. Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage, asked Sullivan about the incident. He responded that he hadn’t heard about it.
Answering reporters’ questions after his speech, Sullivan voiced soft disagreement with ICE policies nationwide, saying he supports deporting illegal immigrants with violent criminal records.
“I think that should be the focus of the administration’s efforts,” he said.
About ICE’s violent tactics in Minnesota, Sullivan said, “I put out statements, but also, importantly, weighed in with senior folks in the administration, saying, look, it’s really important to bring the temperature down on both sides — which ended up happening — and then very much that ICE needs to refine its techniques and tactics.”
Sullivan said he doesn’t believe protesters killed by ICE agents are “domestic terrorists,” as the White House has claimed.
“American citizens have the right to their Second and First Amendment rights, and I don’t think they should be targeted for that reason,” he said.
Wooden gavel with books in background. Law and justice concept
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Wooden gavel with books in background.
Alaska’s legally required campaign ad disclaimers do not violate the First Amendment, the state supreme court ruled Friday, deciding a six-year-old dispute between the Alaska Policy Forum and state campaign regulators.
Justice Dario Borghesan wrote the 61-page decision on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously and upheld minor fines against APF that were issued by the Alaska Public Offices Commission five years ago.
At issue were a series of news releases, opinion pieces and a video embedded in the group’s website, all opposing ranked-choice voting.
“We uphold the agency’s decision, concluding that the cited publications had to be reported and required a ‘paid for by’ disclosure,” Borghesan wrote. “We also hold that the statutory standards are not unconstitutionally vague because they give fair notice of what kind of speech must be reported and must contain a disclosure. And we conclude that the First Amendment challenges to these laws are unavailing.”
APF organized with a variety of groups across the country to produce the video embedded in its website, the opinion notes.
“APF did not just happen to find a video on the internet and share it on social media. APF engaged in discussions with organizations around the country to create a national coalition that developed or gathered content on ranked-choice voting and allowed APF to republish that content. Such efforts required significant time, and someone paid for that time. Alaskans have a genuine interest in knowing who,” the opinion states.
The case dates from 2020, when Alaskans voted to approve Ballot Measure 2.
That measure installed open primary elections, required disclosure of some political donations and installed ranked-choice voting in general elections.
That system remains in place today but has been challenged by a new repeal initiative. A prior repeal effort failed in 2024.
In September 2020, Alaskans for Better Elections, a group that supports the current voting system, filed a complaint with the commission, stating that APF was violating state law because its statements on ranked-choice voting did not list their three top contributors, something required for campaign communications.
APF contended that its statements were about ranked-choice voting in general, not about Ballot Measure 2 in particular, because they didn’t specifically name the Alaska measure.
APOC commissioners disagreed and cited APF, requiring it to file disclosure forms but waiving fines. APF appealed to Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner, who ruled in the commission’s favor, finding that the commission “reasonably concluded that APF’s activities amounted to an express communication that was an exhortation to vote against (Ballot Measure 2).”
Pfiffner rejected technical arguments against the commission’s actions, the argument that state laws were improperly vague, the idea that the First Amendment gave APF a right to publish its material without a disclosure, and APF’s challenge to a state law that requires political groups to disclose contributions starting with the “first dollar” they spend.
Individuals are not subject to the same disclosure requirement.
APF appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in September 2023 and ruled more than two years later.
In Friday’s order, Borghesan repeatedly refers to past rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over Alaska.
Relying on that precedent, the court concluded that given the context and language of APF’s communications, there was no other way to view them than as urging a particular vote in the 2020 campaign.
“In the context of an upcoming election in which ranked-choice voting is on the ballot,” Friday’s order states, a “video’s reference to a ‘push’ by ‘interest groups’ for ranked-choice voting and its call to ‘SAY NO TO RANKED CHOICE VOTING’ is a clear, albeit indirect, reference to voting against the Initiative.”
The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“APF is disappointed by the decision,” said attorney Stacey Stone, who represented the group in court. “The ruling allows the state to treat protected educational speech about public policy as regulated campaign activity. That approach threatens to chill core First Amendment expression. We are reviewing the opinion carefully and evaluating our options.”
Attorney Scott Kendall represented Alaskans for Better Elections.
“Alaskans for Better Elections has been focused on campaign finance transparency since its founding. This victory affirms those values,” he said, explaining that the group is “very pleased with this outcome.”
Kendall noted that Alaskans have an interest in knowing who is funding ads in their elections.
“Hopefully, the Policy Forum will now comply with the law and disclose its donors, as it should have done years ago,” he said.
The University of Alaska Southeast campus in Juneau as seen on May 25, 2022. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
NOTN- The University of Alaska is asking state lawmakers for millions in additional funding next year, saying the money is needed to stabilize operations, cover rising costs and address campus safety and student mental health needs.
University officials outlined their fiscal year 2027 budget request Monday to the Alaska House Finance Subcommittee.
The university’s highest priority for FY27 is a $15.2 million increase in unrestricted general funds for employee compensation.
University officials said the request would fund a 3% raise for union and nonunion employees under negotiated agreements, that’s about 1,100 faculty members, 640 adjunct faculty and roughly 420 graduate employees covered under union contracts. Another approximately 2,700 nonunion staff would also receive a 3% increase
“President Pitney has always tried to ensure that we have a very disciplined negotiation, and we want to respect the legislative process. we’re presenting numbers that are viable in the grand scheme of things, knowing the budget pressures that exist within the state.” Said University Liaison Chad Hutchison.
Officials said 53% of the university’s operating budget goes toward employee compensation, with much of the remainder paying for contracted services like food and custodial work.
The compensation request also includes funding to address rising health care costs. The university estimates $4.8 million in increased costs for health coverage, while the governor’s proposed budget includes $3 million so far.
Beyond pay raises, the university is seeking money for public safety across campuses. At the Anchorage campus, officials said the university police department is significantly understaffed.
“To put this in context, last year, we had about 500 police reports that resulted in cases that required a lot of police officer time.” Said Ryan Buchholdt, the Vice Chancellor for University of Alaska Anchorage, “When we look at Department of Justice statistics we should be in the realm of about 30 police officers minimum, if we start thinking about leaves and training and injuries we should probably be closer to the 44 realm. We have 15 police officers.”
The university is also requesting $900,000 for student mental health services.
“This committee will remember that the students had brought that to many of your members when they visited the capital, it is my expectation based on conversations we’ve been having with the students that they’ll probably bring those requests again, mental health services are a very high need when it comes to our students across all three campuses.” Said Hutchison.
The university reports about 20,500 students statewide, describing itself as a primary workforce provider for Alaska’s economy.
From left to right, Click Bishop, Dave Bronson and Adam Crum, three of the 10 candidates at the Capital City Republican governor candidate forum, are seen on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, at the Baranof Hotel in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
From left to right, Click Bishop, Dave Bronson and Adam Crum, three of the 10 candidates at the Capital City Republican governor candidate forum, are seen on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, at the Baranof Hotel in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
A fast-moving forum in Juneau on Wednesday hosted 10 of Alaska’s 12 Republican candidates for governor, but the size of the field in the hourlong event meant there was more flavor than meat in the soup du jour.
All but two of the candidates effusively praised incumbent President Donald Trump, but despite that support, most said they disagree with his attempt to acquire Greenland and make it part of the United States.
As of Wednesday, 16 people have signed up to run for governor in this year’s election: 12 Republicans, 3 Democrats and an independent.
The top four candidates in the August primary election will advance to the November general election, where voters will sort their choices using ranked choice voting.
Incumbent Gov. Mike Dunleavy is term-limited and unable to run for a third term, leaving the seat open.
Current Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and author Hank Kroll were the only Republicans to not participate in Wednesday’s event, which was hosted by the Capital City Republicans on the night of their annual Lincoln Day dinner. Dahlstrom had a prior commitment and was unable to attend, organizers said. Kroll was not mentioned.
Asked to name their favorite Republican president other than Reagan and Lincoln, most of the 10 candidates said Trump, and some said they put him above Reagan and Lincoln.
“He’s the best president Alaska’s ever had,” said former attorney general Treg Taylor.
“I’d have taken a bullet for him,” said Bruce Walden, a former paratrooper.
“Trump has done more for Alaska than every president in our entire American history,” said former state Sen. Shelley Hughes.
Anchorage podiatrist and state medical board member Matt Heilala said he had to choose Trump because Heilala and his wife play golf with Trump.
Former state Sen. Click Bishop was an exception, naming Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan as his favorite presidents. James William Parkin IV of Angoon said he doesn’t choose favorites and didn’t name a pick.
Asked whether Alaska should support the American acquisition of Greenland, Bishop was quick to say “no,” and most of the other candidates followed suit.
“I think we have enough problems here, and I’d like to see the federal government give us more support to develop our resources here,” said former state revenue commissioner Adam Crum.
Taylor said that “when my friend, the governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, was tapped to be the US envoy (to Greenland), I texted him and said, ‘What the heck? You don’t even know what it’s like to be cold.’ Ultimately, it’s a question for Greenland and self determination, but I’d be happy to talk to (Trump) about how we fit into the United States and the importance that we play in our economy and our strategic location.”
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries was the sole candidate who offered a different answer, saying, “Well, if I want President Trump to continue to love Alaska, I’m going to say yes.”
All but Bishop and Parkin said they intend to support the repeal of Alaska’s 2020 ballot measure, which installed open primary elections and a ranked-choice general election, as well as tougher disclosure requirements for political donations.
The candidates split when asked whether they think Alaska’s judges should be required to run for office or whether judges should be appointed, as in the existing system.
Bishop, Heilala and Hughes each said they think judges should be appointed, though Hughes called for more public members on the Alaska Judicial Council, which examines applicants and nominates candidates to the governor for appointment.
Former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson, Crum, DeVries, Parkin, Taylor, Walden and Wilson each said they think judges should be elected.
When asked which Alaska politician each candidate admires, most said either Ted Stevens or Don Young, longtime Republicans who served in the Senate and House, respectively.
“I don’t think hardly any of them,” Wilson said. “I think you have to get back to my great-uncle Wally (Hickel). … Nick Begich is also doing a hell of a job.”
Wilson served as a senior adviser to Begich’s 2024 election campaign.
Walden also chose Nick Begich.
Asked whether Alaska should regulate artificial intelligence software, the candidates gave a variety of answers.
AI is sort of like a hammer, Walden said. “You can build a house with a hammer. You can also murder somebody with a hammer. If it’s used properly, it’s probably going to be all right, but yeah, we better regulate it big time,” he said.
Wilson said that if anyone on her campaign team is using AI, “they better not be.”
While it is a powerful tool and can be harnessed, she said there are serious concerns. “We have seen AI used to manipulate photos, especially against people running for office. We’ve seen it used to create comments that were never said. I think that we really need to pay attention to the damage that can be done for AI,” she said.
DeVries, at 83, is the oldest candidate in the field.
“I can remember when TV came in and how horrible that was going to be, right? It ended up — it can either be a blessing or a curse, and that’s the way I feel about AI,” she said.
Taylor, who said he used AI to help prepare his closing speech, said “Alaska is AI’s best friend” because the state is the source for critical minerals used in high-tech electronics.
“On the other side, AI is Alaska’s best friend,” because it could be used to make government functions more efficient, Taylor said.
“We have to responsibly deploy AI in state government to create those efficiencies, to create those savings, or we’re going to get left behind.”
Reject stickers await ballot envelopes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at the Division 1 office of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau, Alaska during counting for Alaska's special U.S. House primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Reject stickers await ballot envelopes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at the Division 1 office of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau, Alaska during counting for Alaska’s special U.S. House primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
When the state of Alaska turned over a copy of the state’s voter rolls to the Department of Justice in December, it also signed an agreement that allows the DOJ to ask the state to put individual Alaskans on track for removal from the state’s voter list.
Officially labeled a “confidential memorandum of understanding,” the document was signed Dec. 19 by Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
Alaska is one of at least a dozen states that have signed similar documents, even as more states continue to fight the requests in court.
In part, the document says “the Justice Department will securely notify you or your state of any voter list maintenance issues … i.e., that your state’s (list) only includes eligible voters.”
It goes on to state “that within forty-five (45) days of receiving that notice from the Justice Department of any issues … your state will clean its (list) by removing ineligible voters and resubmit the updated (list) to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department” to confirm that the state is following federal law.
Alaska’s signed agreement was obtained by the Alaska Beacon on Tuesday via a public records request.
Beecher and Kelly Howell, chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, said the agreement does not allow DOJ to purge voters — a term that means removing them from the voter roll altogether.
Instead, the DOJ’s picks, if any, would be placed on the state’s inactive voter list. Anyone on that list must provide ID and have their identity verified if they wish to vote.
The agreement says in part that it was “entered into at your state’s request,” but by email, Dahlstrom’s office said that isn’t correct and that the Department of Justice provided the agreement.
The lieutenant governor is in charge of Alaska’s elections, and in a cover letter dated Dec. 19, she said the memo was “entered at the request of the Department of Justice” and state law.
That law, Dahlstrom said, “allows the Division of Elections to share voters’ confidential information with a federal government agency, such as the Department of Justice, provided it uses ‘the information only for governmental purposes authorized under law.’”
If the Department of Justice were to seek faster removal of Alaskans from the voter rolls, it could violate that clause.
Responding to questions from the Beacon, the lieutenant governor’s chief of staff said the state has not received any notices from the Justice Department about problems with its voter list, that no “ineligible voters” have been removed and that the state isn’t aware of any times when Alaska’s rolls were used for “pre-litigation or litigation purposes,” as defined in the agreement.
Concerns about states’ rights being overridden
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of states to set the rules for local and state elections; changing voter rolls would represent a new expansion of powers by the Department of Justice.
Former Democratic state Sen. Tom Begich, posting about the issue on social media, said he is “outraged” by the agreement between the state and the federal government.
“That kind of federal interference threatens our constitutional right to run our own elections,” he said.
He later issued a statement calling on the Alaska Legislature to investigate the issue.
Dahlstrom, a Republican, is also a candidate for governor.
Writing in an opinion column published by the Juneau Independent on Friday, former Alaska Attorney General Bruce Botelho, a Democrat, said “it is alarming that the federal government has demanded” the copy of the voter roll with personally identifying information.
Nationally, at least 11 other states have signed agreements similar to the one signed by Alaska, according to federal court testimony in December over a lawsuit that challenged the state of California’s refusal to turn over its voter rolls to the federal government.
The text of Alaska’s agreement is almost identical to ones previously disclosed in court and by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit by the federal government against the state of Colorado.
“We will not comply with the Trump Department of Justice’s request for Coloradans’ sensitive voting information,” said Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, in December. “The DOJ can take a hike; it does not have a legal right to the information. Colorado will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections and hurt the American people.”
Nationally, the federal government has sued more than two dozen states, including Colorado, that refused to send voter rolls to the federal government.
Those states generally have provided copies of publicly available rolls, but the federal government is seeking more detailed information, including lists of personally identifying information that may include birth dates, driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers in part or whole.
“The manner in which the Department of Justice has acted makes clear that what is at stake is not voter integrity, but voter privacy,” Botelho said.
The Justice Department has said that its requests are necessary to make sure that states are following federal laws that require them to regularly maintain their lists and keep noncitizens from voting.
As of this week, federal judges had ruled against the Department of Justice in lawsuits covering Oregon, California and Michigan. The department has not prevailed in any case so far.
In the Oregon ruling, published on Feb. 5, Judge Mustafa Kashubhai wrote that the federal government cannot be trusted about its true motives.
“When Plaintiff, in this case, conveys assurances that any private and sensitive data will remain private and used only for a declared and limited purpose, it must be thoroughly scrutinized and squared with its open and public statements to the contrary,” he wrote.
Alaska-specific implications may be broad
The national ACLU has opposed the federal government’s requests in general. When contacted Friday about the Alaska memo, the Alaska chapter of the organization said it did not have immediate comment and was still researching the issue.
The agreement between the state of Alaska and the Department of Justice could have broad consequences here.
Days before signing the agreement, the Alaska Division of Elections disclosed that dozens of noncitizens had accidentally been registered to vote by the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles.
Under guidelines imposed by the Trump administration, those noncitizens could be deported, because federal law strictly prohibits noncitizens from registering to vote, and appearing on a voter list prompts special review when someone is attempting to become a citizen.
Correction: The initial version of this article incorrectly stated that the memo would allow the Department of Justice to direct the purge of individual voters. It only permits DOJ to identify Alaskans for eventual removal and does not immediately prevent them from voting.
The Alaska State Capitol is seen behind other buildings on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, in downtown Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol is seen behind other buildings on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, in downtown Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature on Wednesday approved a 30-day extension for the state of disaster covering the fall 2025 storms that battered the state’s west coast.
The extension allows the state to continue spending money from its disaster response fund as it continues cleanup and repair efforts from two storms in October. Hundreds of Alaskans were displaced by the disasters, which devastated coastal communities.
The Alaska Senate approved the extension in a 19-0 vote on Monday, but the extension nearly failed in the Alaska House after members of the House’s Republican minority caucus raised procedural issues on Wednesday and said members of the majority were not following state law.
The extension was included in Senate Concurrent Resolution 12, which retroactively approves extensions issued since October and allows the governor to spend more from the state’s disaster response fund.
“Doing this as a resolution is dangerous, I think it’s a mistake, and I’m not even certain that it’s legal,” said House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer.
Johnson and other Republicans said that under their interpretation of state law, legislators would need to approve the spending via a bill, not a resolution.
A legislative attorney, writing in a Feb. 2 memo to Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, said, “when the legislature means to take action having a binding effect on those outside the legislature, including extending a disaster declaration, the legislature must enact a bill in a special or regular session rather than using the less formal resolution process.”
Johnson was rebutted by House Rules Chair Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and a member of the House’s majority coalition.
“This is not new money,” she said. “This is money that has been (in the fund) and is being allowed to be appropriated out. … it’s been agreed upon that maybe this wasn’t the optimum way. Nothing’s perfect. We’re moving forward. We are trying to do the best we can as quickly as we can. Time is of the essence, so I ask you to ask yourself: Do you want to be right in how it is done, or do you want to do the right thing when there’s a question?”
The House vote was 22-18, with Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, joining the 21 members of the House’s coalition majority in support. All other members of the House Republican minority voted against the resolution.
As debate opened, Rep. Nellie Unangiq Jimmie, D-Toksook Bay, became choked up as she described the disaster, which devastated her district and resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in state history.
“Today, months later, 340 of our neighbors remain without permanent houses. Mr. Speaker, we are Yup’ik. Our people have lived in this delta for thousands of years. We know storms. We know water. We know loss,” she said. “We have lived on this coast for thousands of years, and we’ve survived ice ages, epidemics, colonization. We’ve survived by adapting, sharing, by refusing to abandon our homes, but you can’t really live when your home floats 10 miles out to sea, when your fuel tanks that heat your home in winter are submerged in salt water.”
On Jan. 28, Gov. Mike Dunleavy requested permission to spend $20.5 million from the disaster response fund, up $5.5 million from a prior request.
When federal money is added to that tally, the total amount is $39.25 million.
More spending is expected.
Last week, the director of the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has estimated at least $125 million in state and federal costs related to the storm disaster.
“The declaration allows state agencies to continue their emergency response and to extend state funds as needed,” said Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee.
Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, took issue with the fact that after Dunleavy declared a state of disaster in October, the Speaker of the House and Senate President approved subsequent 30-day extensions without consulting legislators.
“I think we should have called ourselves in (to special session), or the third floor should have called us in (to special session) to take up this very important issue,” Ruffridge said.
“What precedent does this set for the presiding officers to make the decisions before us on our behalf?” he asked. “What power do we give the executive by allowing disaster declarations to continue without (the House) or the (Senate) taking up that order of business?”
Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River, said he worries that failing to follow proper procedure could leave disaster relief vulnerable to legal challenge.
“We put the reliability of that relief at question if this is not done right,” he said.
The day after the vote, Ruffridge said members of the minority have drafted a bill that would fix the problems they see, and that bill is being reviewed by legislative attorneys.
House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, said legislative attorneys have reviewed the majority’s plan.
“We have had our legal department tell us that this passes muster,” he said during the debate.
After the vote, Kopp’s office was unable to provide a legal memo to that effect but said he had received verbal advice.
Josephson, wrapping up debate, said the majority was working in good faith with Dunleavy to get the money out the door quickly.
“Given the urgency of the matter, we’re trying to cooperate with the executive branch,” he said.
Alaska Chief Justice Susan Carney gives the annual State of the Judiciary address to members of the Alaska State Legislature on Feb. 11, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
In her annual speech, Alaska’s chief justice of the Supreme Court told lawmakers the state is making significant progress on the court’s backlog of criminal cases, but there is more work to be done.
Susan Carney, chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court poses for a photo in the Juneau Courthouse following her annual State of the Judiciary address to the Legislature on Feb. 11, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Susan Carney gave the annual State of the Judiciary address to members of the Legislature on Monday. She is now in the second year of her term as chief justice, presiding over the five-member Alaska Supreme Court.
Carney has practiced law in Alaska for over 40 years, and has served on the Supreme Court since 2016, when she was appointed by Gov. Bill Walker. She’s the second woman to serve in the role as chief justice, leading Alaska’s first female-majority Supreme Court.
“We have eliminated the pandemic backlog,” she said. “But I told you last year, and I’ll reiterate to you today, that our work isn’t done.”
Alaska’s court system has grappled with significant pre-trial delays, with some defendants and victims languishing for years before court rulings — as highlighted by investigative reporting from the Anchorage Daily News and ProPublica. The time to resolve the most serious criminal cases, such as murder and sexual assault, has nearly tripled in the last decade, reporters found.
“It’s not comfortable to have the press focus on a few extremely sad but also extremely unusual cases, but it’s valuable for us,” Carney said in her address. “I know that the cases with extreme delay are outliers compared to the vast majority of criminal cases and the time it takes to resolve them, but it’s still heartbreaking to think of the anguish that victims suffer and the problems that delays cause to everybody involved.”
Carney said pending criminal cases ballooned during the COVID pandemic to over 20,000 cases in 2023, which she said was unprecedented. She said with focused efforts, and the legislature’s approved raises for state attorneys, the courts are making progress. “There are now fewer than 11,000 open criminal cases,” she said.
Last year, the Supreme Court ordered limits on continuances, or time extensions granted by judges, in order to limit delays and speed up court proceedings. The order required that there be no more than 270 days of new delays for criminal cases filed in 2022 or before.
“Our order addressed continuance requests because judges are not the ones that delayed cases. Delays happen when an attorney, whether on the defense or prosecution side, asks for more time to prepare for a hearing or to file some kind of document,” Carney said. “And the judge grants that request.”
Carney said the order requires all requests to be made on the record or documented in writing, and judges are given guidelines for making rulings on whether to grant delays. “For example, a medical emergency will almost always be a good cause to put off a case, but negotiations with the other side will just about never be a good cause.”
She said as a result, the number of pending felony cases in criminal court has dropped by more than half.
“On January 1, 2023 there were 1,677 pending felonies, more than two years old. That was nearly one out of every four pending felony cases,” she said “This year, on January 1, 2026 we had fewer than 750 pending felonies over two years old. This is great progress.”
Carney emphasized that criminal cases are complex, and continuing the effort to reduce the backlog requires work from everyone involved — from juries and witnesses, to prosecutors and defense attorneys. “We continue to work with the prosecution and the defense agencies so that we can all keep cutting down the time it takes to move cases through the criminal justice system,” she said.
Carney noted criminal cases make up roughly 30% of all cases in state courts, and the 70% that are civil cases — which can be divorces, child custody, or foster care decisions — are highly emotional and can take extra time and care from judges as well.
“When people come to a courthouse, they are generally having their worst day ever, and they’re going through very challenging and often life changing circumstances. We work hard every day to provide not only fair and reasonable decisions, but to recognize the difficulties that Alaskans are having when they come into our courthouses and to explain and to help them feel heard and feel that we understand them,” she said.
Moving forward, Carney said the courts have requested one new Superior Court judge in Palmer to address the growing case load of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough’s growing population. The four judges based in Palmer are handling an average of 683 cases per judge, compared to a statewide average of 458 cases per judge, according to state data.
“They are the busiest in the state, and they have been the busiest each of the last five years,” she said, adding that judges from Anchorage to Valdez have stepped in to relieve the burden.
“This is mostly for criminal and Child in Need of Aid cases, but that leaves all the other kinds of cases — the divorces, the custody business matters — just waiting,” she said. “We do not want to clear out all the oldest criminal cases only to find a similarly problematic group of old civil cases causing our new crisis.”
Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, after the speech questioned whether just one more judge is enough. “The idea that we just need one judge is, I find, a little bit conservative. I think we might need more judges,” he said.
Gray has called for the state to expand the number of prosecutors and public defenders. He said imposed timelines for trials is a concern, with overburdened attorneys carrying high case loads, and can risk a mistrial and more delays.
“Our prosecutors and our public defenders have too many cases. We need more of them. We need to lower their caseloads,” he said. “That’s going to improve these timelines the most, and ensure that folks are getting the best lawyer available who’s fully prepared and ready to do the work.”
Carney, in an interview after the address, said the request for the Palmer Superior Court is the focus for now. “Bringing in another judge will, I think, at the very least, mean that we don’t have to keep bringing judges from other places,” she said. “I think it will allow us to keep even at this point.”
Lawmakers are now considering House Bill 262, which would expand the number of judges, which passed the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. If the bill becomes law, the Alaska Judicial Council would put forward recommendations for a new state judge that would then be approved by the governor.
Alaska Supreme Court Justices (left to right) Aimee A. Oravec, Jude Pate, Jennifer S. Henderson, and Dario Borghesan, attend the chief justice’s annual State of the Judiciary address to the Legislature on Feb. 11, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, talks to a colleague on the floor of the Alaska Senate, Wednesday, May 1, 2024. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, talks to a colleague on the floor of the Alaska Senate, Wednesday, May 1, 2024. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska public school students would be required to learn hands-only CPR under a proposal advancing through the state legislature.
In a 19-0 vote on Wednesday, the Alaska Senate approved Senate Bill 20, which requires the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development to “adopt curricula to instruct public school students on hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation.”
Sen. Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla, was absent from the vote.
Existing state law says that each state school district is “encouraged” to teach CPR; the new bill, if approved by the House and Gov. Mike Dunleavy, would change CPR to a requirement.
The department said in a fiscal note that it will be able to implement the new requirement at no additional cost to the state.
“It’s time for Alaska to align with the growing national standard that ensures students learn these life-saving CPR techniques,” said Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage and the sponsor of the bill.
Heart diseases are the No. 2 cause of death in Alaska, according to the latest available state statistics. CPR can be used to keep someone’s blood flowing if they experience sudden cardiac arrest. That can triple a victim’s chances of survival, Gray-Jackson said, noting that CPR has even been used in the Capitol on occasion.
SB 20 advances to the House for further consideration. A companion measure, House Bill 92, is in the House Education Committee and has not yet been heard.
NOTN- A proposed ferry terminal at Cascade Point near Juneau is drawing increasing criticism from Alaska lawmakers and the public alike, who are question its cost, planning and long-term benefit to the state’s struggling ferry system.
“I’m really struggling when we talk about the Cascade Point project and a few of these other proposed items, to understand how, from that statewide perspective, we’re investing the amount of money we’re investing into these projects.” Said Representative Ashley Carrick, “Why this? I’d like this money to stay in Southeast and be reinvested back into the Marine highway system in some way. But when you talk about there being controversy and welcoming the dialog, it doesn’t seem to jive with the fact that the dollars are already dedicated towards this project. So the discussion seems to be sort of moot and after the fact.”
Ryan Anderson, Commissioner for the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said, “When we are looking at that balance between the cost of a ferry, I view it as the time of a person, so if you can reduce the time you have to be on the ferry by hours, I see that as a value. We’re constantly looking for ways for operational efficiency.”
The Department of Transportation has already begun spending money on the project despite what lawmakers call unresolved issues, including plans for fresh water, sewage handling and access for walk-on passengers.
“They have a sort of big concept of a plan,” Kiehl said. “You shouldn’t start spending money before you’ve worked that stuff out.”
An economic analysis completed earlier this year concluded the project would not pay for itself within a reasonable time frame, Kiehl said. Lawmakers are also concerned that the terminal would not reduce operating costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System, which has faced years of service cuts and budget challenges.
“The other thing that’s super weird is, We really use a lot fewer of Alaskans dollars if we put the projects through the federal process, 9 national dollars for every 1 Alaska dollar.” He said, “I want to be able to promise you that I’m using your money as efficiently as I can. Well DOT has decided to do this with 100% Alaska dollars, no federal money in it.”
The Marine Highway Operations Board has formally opposed the project, and Kiehl said many legislators share those concerns.
“I have a huge number of colleagues who are just saying, this is crazy.” Kiehl said, “When I talk to DOT, and I say, show me the homework, and I get the dreaming stage, that’s tough defense to play.”
Supporters of a proposed ferry terminal at Cascade Point point to a partnership with Goldbelt Inc. as a key advantage, but Alaska lawmakers say the collaboration has not resolved broader concerns about the project.
“I guess most folks in the legislature are really questioning, is a second ferry terminal in Juneau, the way to go? Does it save us money long term? Does it make the ferry system more efficient long term?” Kiehl said.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, talks on the floor of the Alaska House of Representatives on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, talks on the floor of the Alaska House of Representatives on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The University of Alaska may soon be legally required to provide itemized bills to students and give them more notice of fee increases.
The Alaska House of Representatives voted 36-3 on Friday to pass House Bill 176 and send it to the Senate for further consideration.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, introduced the bill in the House and said it is “meant to provide greater transparency and accountability for all of my fellow Nanooks, Seawolves and Whales out there,” referring to the state’s universities by their mascots.
“With House Bill 176, it is our hope that we are able to provide more information to students and those that may be helping them to pay their bills about what it is that they are paying for and how those dollars will be spent,” she said.
The legislation received bipartisan support in the House.
“As a mom of two college students, it is important to see what is going on with their tuition because I’m paying for their tuition,” said Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River.
No one spoke against the bill on the floor, but afterward, Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna and one of three “no” votes, said he didn’t think the bill was necessary.
“I just think government does some things that could be solved with five or six conversations,” he said.
The University of Alaska said in a fiscal note that it believes it can implement the changes without any additional cost to its budget.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Education Committee, which has not yet scheduled it for a hearing.
